The Court spent nearly two hours debating the merits of US v. Hemani. They were trying to figure out whether the modern ban on drug users, even just those who smoke weed, is relevantly similar to Founding Era laws related to "habitual drunkards." The back-and-forth seemed to create some interesting splits among the justices and scrambled the Court's usual ideological coalitions.

To analyze the fallout from oral arguments, we have the Independence Institute's David Kopel back on the show. He has been one of the most influential Second Amendment scholars over the past 30 years, being cited in cases from the Supreme Court on down the federal judiciary. He filed a brief with the National Rifle Association arguing that the justices should side with Hemani in his challenge to the ban.

Kopel said he was a bit surprised at how oral arguments seemed to go for Hemani. He had expected greater pushback from more of the justices, especially the liberal bloc. He said the majority of the Court appeared skeptical of the law's constitutionality.

However, he said it is always possible that a justice doesn't vote the way their questions might imply. It's possible the liberals side with the government or Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, who were most skeptical of Hemani, end up going the other way. Still, he concluded that whatever the Court does in the case, it'll likely have a major impact just on the basis of how fresh Second Amendment jurisprudence is at this moment.

Special Guest: David Kopel.

That's because this slate will be the biggest yet. Now, sure, that still only means they have two Second Amendment claims to consider. But that's more than ever before, and it comes just a few months after many gun-rights activists thought the Court was wavering on the deciding key cases.

So, to discuss what we should make of this Supreme Court term, we've got Independence Institute research director David Kopel back on the show. He is one of the leading scholars in the gun-rights movement, and his work helped develop and legitimize the individual right theory of the Second Amendment. He has been cited in numerous Supreme Court gun opinions and is an odd-on favorite to be quoted again this year.

Kopel argued it is notable that the Supreme Court is taking up more Second Amendment cases than ever before. He said there are outcomes that could dramatically alter the legal landscape for gun-carry or people who smoke marijuana and own guns. However, he also noted that narrow rulings could still alter the course of Second Amendment caselaw, given the Court's infrequent involvement in the issue to date.

Kopel said every word a Supreme Court justice utters or writes in the course of deciding these two cases will be pored over by the lower courts for years to come.

Special Guest: David Kopel.

To do that, we have the Independence Institute's David Kopel on the show. Kopel has written extensively on gun policy and been cited repeatedly at the Supreme Court. So, there are few people better qualified to dissect what the VanDerStok ruling means.

Kopel argued the decision upholding the ATF's "ghost gun" kit ban is relatively narrow, but still likely applies to more than just the Polymer80 "buy build shoot" kits discussed at length by the majority. He also explained why the majority decided the case as a facial challenge and why he, along with Justices Thomas and Alito, disagrees with the use of that standard.

He said the Trump Administration could have tried to intervene in this case, but didn't move fast enough. However, he argued that it can still try to undo the rule despite the decision. Kopel also gave his view on where the balance of the court lies on gun issues and whether there's a reliable way to read what they might do with other pending gun cases.

Get a 30-day free trial for a subscription to The Dispatch here: https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utm_source=thereload&utm_medium=partnerships-podcast&utm_campaign=0125

Special Guest: David Kopel.

However, it's unclear exactly what changes might come from the order. So, we've got Second Amendment scholar David Kopel on the show to try and give some clarity to what's possible.

Kopel walks through each section of the order and explains what kind of actions they could lead to. He notes the ATF rules are likely to be an area of emphasis and one that may have the biggest practical impact. Similarly, the rollback of the ATF's "zero tolerance" enforcement policy for gun dealers could be significant and happen much faster.

He also explained how the order could lead to the Department of Justice changing its stance in Second Amendment litigation or reclassifying certain guns to make them easier to import. He said it could also do smaller things like revoke and respond to reports from the seemingly defunct White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

Get a 30-day free trial for a subscription to The Dispatch here: https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utm_source=thereload&utm_medium=partnerships-podcast&utm_campaign=0125

Special Guest: David Kopel.

Even though I was in the Philippines with my fiance during the show this year, I wanted to make sure we all stayed updated on the big storylines of SHOT Show 2025. So, I invited one of the best gun reviewers out there to come on the show and give us his view from the floor. David Blanton is a competitive shooter turned gun reviewer who runs The Humble Marksman YouTube channel.

He's been one of my favorite reviewers for a while now, and he was able to peruse the industry's latest offerings at SHOT. He gives insight into the major trends at this year's show, including integrated compensators and big company collaborations. He also shares the guns he handled that intrigued him the most.

Then Blanton explained why he thinks longtime industry standard-bearer Glock is in danger of being left behind. We also discussed the troubling trend of companies releasing guns that aren't fully baked.

I also talk to one of the folks that make this show possible in a Members' segment!

So, we've got one of the top pro-gun scholars in the country on the show to break down what The Court did and didn't hold. Independence Institute's David Kopel has been at the forefront of the Second Amendment fight for decades, with citations in federal court decisions coast to coast and at the Supreme Court itself. He also filed a brief in Rahimi that appears to have significantly influenced the majority's thinking.

Kopel lays out the good, bad, and ugly of the ruling that upheld the domestic violence restraining order gun ban. He said he wasn't surprised The Court upheld Rahimi's conviction, given a lower court found him dangerous. He also agreed with some of the warnings about how the majority loosened the standard for the Bruen test that Justice Clarance Thomas included in his lengthy dissent.

However, Kopel said he was overall pleased with the Rahimi decision's outcome. He argued it gave credence to future challenges to the same law by defendants who don't have the same lengthy criminal record as Rahimi did. He also predicted how the case might impact other Second Amendment cases pending in the lower courts.

Follow this link for your free trial at The Dispatch:
https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=reload0624

Special Guest: David Kopel.

Kopel was on the show about a month ago describing his brief in the case. And the issue in that brief came up in oral arguments. Kopel reacts to the discussion around the more problematic section of the federal law that bars those subject to domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns.

He also gave his view on the government retreating from the idea that anyone who isn't "law-abiding" or "responsible" can be disarmed. Kopel said that retreat was significant and could have implications for other Second Amendment cases coming down the line. At the same time, he said Rahimi's lawyer had to make his own retreats and the Justices seemed unsympathetic to his overarching argument.

Kopel predicted the Court would probably release its ruling before the summer and he expected it would uphold the ban. But he said the details of the ruling are harder to predict.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the massive upswing in Israeli civilian gun ownership after the October 7th attacks.

Special Guest: David Kopel.

David Kopel joins the podcast to explain his amicus brief in United States v. Rahimi. He is one of the most accomplished scholars on the topic. His work has been cited in countless federal court decisions and all of the Supreme Court's major Second Amendment rulings.

In Rahimi, Kopel argued the federal law barring those under domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns is unconstitutional. He said the problem lies in a provision that doesn't require any finding that the subject of the restraining order is dangerous. But he also noted the problem could be fixed with a single word being changed.

He argued Rahimi is the kind of person who should be barred from owning guns. However, he said the law doesn't pass the Court's history and tradition test as it is currently written.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I explain how Israel is loosening its gun laws in the wake of terror attacks.

Special Guest: David Kopel.

So, the Illinois ban is blocked for now. But Washington's was just signed. And Delaware's 2022 ban is still standing. Elsewhere, bans on the popular guns, including the AR-15, have been forestalled by political reality.

Independence Institute's David Kopel understands the fight well having just gone through it in his home state of Colorado, where Democrats who control the government weren't able to push a ban over the finish line. But he has also filed many court briefs and written even more books or academic papers on the topic from a pro-gun point of view. He joins the show to discuss the political and legal landscape in the fight over assault weapons bans.

What stopped Colorado's ban from going forward? Why has there been a sudden resurgence in blue states pushing for the bans? What is the legal argument against them? What is the state of the numerous lawsuits against AR-15 bans across the country?

And, most importantly, will the Supreme Court take up an assault weapons ban case soon? If so, what are they likely to decide?

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the wide-reaching implications of the bump stock ban being stuck down by another federal appeals court.

Special Guest: David Kopel.